Re: Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Tomasz Zielonka
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:24:09AM +0100, Ross Paterson wrote: > How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable interface? > They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and provide a > comfortable interface for everyone. It may be relevant for this discussion: I believe I r

Re: Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Aaron Denney
On 2006-03-28, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/27/06, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable interface? >> They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and provide a >> comfortable interface for everyone. > > +1 on S

Re: Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Taral
On 3/27/06, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about STM (minus retry/orElse) and TVars as the portable interface? > They're trivial for a single-threaded implementation, and provide a > comfortable interface for everyone. +1 on STM as the core interface. Why do you suggest omitting re

Re: Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Ross Paterson
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 09:36:28AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: > On 26 March 2006 03:44, Ross Paterson wrote: > > [...] the key point is that > > a Haskell' module that does not use concurrency, but is thread-safe, > > ought to work with non-concurrent implementations too. > > > > To make that work

Re: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Neil Mitchell
> it's too hard to implement (and it's not always hard > - the YHC guys > managed it in a matter of days Tom is the one who implemented it in Yhc, and details can be found http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Yhc/RTS/Concurrency but some of the reasons that it was easier than in other compilers are

Concurrency (was: RE: Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion)

2006-03-27 Thread Simon Marlow
On 26 March 2006 02:31, isaac jones wrote: > Possible Interests: > 1. I can write tools like filesystems, web servers, and GUIs in > Haskell' > 2. Libraries that I use are thread-safe > 3. I can compile my code with any Haskell' compiler > 4. Tools such as debuggers and tracers that claim to s

Re: Alternatives to . for composition

2006-03-27 Thread Josef Svenningsson
FYI, Cayenne used the center dot as composition. See the System$HO module. http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~augustss/cayenne/system.html I remember liking it but I think the ring operator would be closer to mathematics notation and indeed the best choice. Cheers, /Josef On 3/25/06, Dylan Thurston <[EM

Re: Alternatives to . for composition

2006-03-27 Thread Doaitse Swierstra
I am not sure how this look in other people's editors and mail- readers, but on my machine (Mac OS X Tiger) there is significantly more white space after the symbol than before. Is that normal? For emacs, just bind a key (C-. say) to (ucs-insert #X2218). ucs-insert comes from ucs-tables.

Re: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Malcolm Wallace
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:07:53AM +, Malcolm Wallace wrote: > > I assume that since a non-concurrent implementation has > > only one thread, that thread will be trying to MVar-synchronise with > > something that does not exist, and hence

RE: Re[2]: important news: refocusing discussion

2006-03-27 Thread Simon Marlow
On 26 March 2006 03:44, Ross Paterson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 05:31:04PM -0800, isaac jones wrote: >> I have no idea if it would work, but one solution that Simon didn't >> mention in his enumeration (below) is that we could find a group of >> people willing to work hard to implement conc